Hi Harald,
You were absolutely right about returning 'false' :-) The patch is duly
corrected.
Committed to mainline and will be followed by backports in a few weeks.
Regards
Paul
On Tue, 21 May 2024 at 19:58, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am 20.05.24 um 11:06 schrieb Pau
Hi All,
I don't think that this PR is really a regression although the fact that it
is marked as such brought it to my attention :-)
The fix turned out to be remarkably simple. It was found after going down a
silly number of rabbit holes, though!
The chunk in dependency.cc is probably more
Hi All,
I have been around several circuits with a patch for this regression. I
posted one in Bugzilla but rejected it because it was not direct enough.
This one, however, is more to my liking and fixes another bug lurking in
the shadows.
The way in which select type has been implemented is a
Hi Mikael,
That is an ingenious solution. Given the complexity, I think that the
comments are well warranted.
OK for master and, I would suggest, 14-branch after a few weeks.
Thanks!
Paul
On Sun, 12 May 2024 at 14:16, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here is my final patch to fix the ICE of
Hi Harald,
Please find attached my resubmission for pr113363. The changes are as
follows:
(i) The chunk in gfc_conv_procedure_call is new. This was the source of one
of the memory leaks;
(ii) The incorporation of the _len field in trans_class_assignment was done
for the pr84006 patch;
(iii) The
.
A resubmission of the patch for PR113363 will follow since it depends on
this one to fix all the memory problems.
OK for mainline?
Regards
Paul
On Thu, 9 May 2024 at 08:52, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> The Linaro people caught that
40 40 4 5$
> >abcdefghij^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@<$
>
> So since the physical representation of chr_a is sufficient
> to hold star_a (F2023:16.9.212), no reallocation with a wrong
> calculated size should happen. (Intel and NAG get this right.)
>
This fix is straightforward and described by the ChangeLog. Jose Rui
Faustino de Sousa posted the same fix for the ICE on the fortran list
slightly more than three years ago. Thinking that he had commit rights, I
deferred but, regrettably, the patch was never applied. The attached patch
also fixes
Hi Harald,
Please do commit, with or without the extra bit for the function result.
As well as having to get back to pr113363, I have patches in a complete
state for pr84006 and 98534. However they clash with yours. You arrived at
the head of the queue first and so after you :-)
Regards
Paul
Hi Harald,
This patch is verging on 'obvious', . once one sees it :-)
Yes, it's good for mainline and all active branches, when available.
Thanks
Paul
PS The fall-out pr114874 is so peculiar that I am dropping everything to
find the source.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 19:39, Harald Anlauf
:
> Hello,
>
> Le 28/04/2024 à 23:37, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit :
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Could this be looked at quickly? The timing of this regression is more
> > than a little embarrassing on the eve of the 14.1 release. The testcase
> > and the comment in g
Hi All,
Could this be looked at quickly? The timing of this regression is more than
a little embarrassing on the eve of the 14.1 release. The testcase and the
comment in gfc_trans_class_init_assign explain what this problem is all
about and how the patch fixes it.
OK for 15-branch and
Hi there,
This regression turned out to be low hanging fruit, although it has taken
four years to reach it :-(
The ChangeLog says it all. OK for mainline and backporting after a suitable
delay?
Paul
Fortran: Fix ICE in gfc_trans_create_temp_array from bad type [PR93678]
2024-04-24 Paul
PS ignore the chunk in trans-array.cc. It is an attempt to fix PR93678 that
literally did nothing.
Paul
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 07:05, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The linaro pre-commit error testing picked up errors for arm and aarch
&
more.
Paul
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 16:25, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Jakub pinpointed the source of this bug in comment 6 of the PR. The rest
> was 'obvious' :-)
>
> I plan to push the patch to mainline in the next 24 hours unl
Hi All,
Jakub pinpointed the source of this bug in comment 6 of the PR. The rest
was 'obvious' :-)
I plan to push the patch to mainline in the next 24 hours unless there are
opinions to the contrary. Backporting is proposed to occur a couple of
weeks later.
Best regards
Paul
Fortran: Generate
>
>
> Hi Harald,
> Indeed, the gfc_fatal_error always wins.
:-(
>
> This PR is marked as a regression. Depending on your progress,
> it might be worth to consider fixing what you think is needed
> to get rid of the regression marker and defer the improvement
> of the diagnostics to a second
Hi Harald,
>
> the patch is OK, but I had to manually fix it. I wonder how you managed
> to produce:
>
Yes, I had to use --whitespace fix when I reapplied it a few minutes ago.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr93484.f90
>
I had followed comment 1 in the PR and wrongly named the
Hi All,
This is a more or less obvious patch. The action is in resolve.cc. The
chunk in symbol.cc is a tidy up of a diagnostic marker to distinguish where
the 'no IMPLICIT type' error was coming from and the chunk in trans-decl.cc
follows from discussion with Harald on the PR.
Regtests fine. OK
This ICE was caused by my patch r14-9489-g3fd46d859cda10. However, the ICE
hid a wrong error going back to at least 6.4.1 20180703. The patch fixes
both and exposed incorrect error messages in existing tests in gfortran.dg.
The fix for these was to add 'IMPLICIT NONE' in call cases so that there
Hi All,
This patch corrects incorrect results from assignment of unlimited
polymorphic function results both in assignment statements and allocation
with source.
The first chunk in trans-array.cc ensures that the array dtype is set to
the source dtype. The second chunk ensures that the lhs _len
Patch pushed after pre-approval by Harald on Bugzilla.
Fortran: Fix ICE in gfc_trans_pointer_assignment [PR113956]
2024-04-09 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/113956
* trans-expr.cc (gfc_trans_pointer_assignment): Remove assert
causing the ICE since it was
Hi All,
This one is blazingly 'obvious'. I haven't had the heart to investigate why
somebody thought that it is a good idea to check if unreferenced symbols
are finalizable because, I suspect, that 'somebody' was me. Worse, I tried
a couple of other fixes before I hit on the 'obvious' one :-(
Hi Jerry,
It looks good to me. Noting that this is not a regression, OK for mainline
on condition that you keep a sharp eye out for any associated problems.
Likewise with backporting to 13-branch.
Thanks
Paul
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 02:34, Jerry D wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The attached log entry
This regression has a relatively simple fix. The passing of a subroutine
procedure pointer component to a dummy variable was being missed
completely. The error has been added. Conversely, an error was generated
for a procedure pointer variable but no use was being made of the
interface, if one was
Hi Harald,
>
> I had only a quick glance at your patch. I guess you unintentionally
> forgot to remove those parts that you already committed for PR110987,
> along with the finalize-testcases.
>
Guilty as charged. I guess I got out of the wrong side of the bed :-)
>
> I am still trying to find
Hi All,
This bug emerged in a large code and involves possible recursion with a
"hidden" module procedure; ie. where the symtree name starts with '@'. This
throws the format decoder. As the last message in the PR shows, I have
vacillated between silently passing on the possible recursion or
Hi Harald,
Thanks for the thumbs-up. Committed as
3c793f0361bc66d2a6bf0b3e1fb3234fc511e2a6.
I will backport to 13-branch in a couple of weeks.
Best regards
Paul
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 22:27, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> ...snip...
> yes, this looks good here.
>
> ...snip...
The patch looks
Hi Harald,
I have made a start on this: I have updated the text around bug reports in
the developers section, added the bugs fixed etc.. for 2022/23 and
eliminated the links to the Doxygen documentation.
The biggest part of the job will be to add "what's new" in 10-14 branches
and F2003/8/18
Hi All,
The attached patch has two elements:
(i) A fix for gimplifier ICEs with derived type having no components. The
reporter himself suggested (thanks Kirill!):
- if (derived && derived->attr.zero_comp)
+ if (derived && (derived->components == NULL))
As far as I can tell, this is the
Hi Harald,
Yes, that's a good idea. I'll take a look tomorrow morning to see what I
think needs doing and then let's put heads together.
Regards
Paul
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 at 20:23, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the gfortran wiki (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran) seems to have been
>
Hi Harald,
This is completely fine - if you haven't committed, please do so.
Thanks
Paul
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 17:32, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> here's a simple and obvious patch for a rejects-valid case when
> we pass a NULL() actual to an optional dummy for variants where
>
Hi Mikael,
This is very good. I am pleased to see global variables disappear and I
like the new helper functions.
As before, OK for mainline and, if you wish, 13-branch.
Thanks
Paul
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 15:49, Mikael Morin wrote:
> This fixes a spurious invalid variable in specification
Hi Mikael,
Sorry, I am replying to these in the order that they appear in my intray :-)
OK for mainline and, if you wish, 13-branch.
Thanks
Paul
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 15:49, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> these patches correct diagnostics dealing with variables in specification
>
Hi Mikael,
This looks completely "obvious" to me. OK for mainline and, I would
suggest, 13-branch.
Thanks
Paul
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 15:49, Mikael Morin wrote:
> This fixes invalid undeclared fortran array bound variables
> in the testsuite.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> *
Hi Harald,
This looks good to me. The testcase gives the same result with other brands.
OK for mainline and for backporting.
Thanks
Paul
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 22:12, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> here's another small fix: IS_CONTIGUOUS did erroneously always
> return .true. for
s approach was
very clever but has found it's limit with the associate construct. The sad
thing is that this is the only blocker that I know of.
Thanks
Paul
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:07, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 3/12/24 15:54, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > Hi All,
Hi All,
This is the last posting of this patch before I push it. Harald is OK with
it on the grounds that the inferred_type flag guards the whole lot,
except for the chunks in trans-stmt.cc.
In spite of Harald's off-list admonition not to try to fix everything at
once, this version fixes most of
Hi Harald,
This looks good to me. OK for mainline and, since it is so straightforward,
for backporting.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 21:20, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached patch fixes an ICE-on-valid code when assigning
> a procedure pointer that is a
Hi Harald,
This all looks good to me. OK for mainline and, according to intestinal
fortitude on your part, earlier branches.
Thanks
Paul
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 21:24, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> error recovery on arithmetic errors during simplification has bugged
> me for a long
/trans-stmt.cc:2383
> [...]
>
> I don't see anything wrong with it: NAG groks it, like Nvidia and Flang,
> while Intel crashes at runtime.
>
> Can you have another brief look?
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
>
> On 1/6/24 18:26, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > These
These PRs come about because of gfortran's single pass parsing. If the
function in the title is parsed after the associate construct, then its
type and rank are not known. The point at which this becomes a problem is
when expressions within the associate block are parsed. primary.cc
Hi Harald,
'from' is slightly better but either will be understood.
Cheers
Paul
Happy New Year to you all!
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 at 21:25, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Thomas!
>
> Am 30.12.23 um 12:08 schrieb Thomas Koenig:
> > Replying to myself...
> >
> >
> >> I think this also desevers a
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 12/6/23 17:09, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > This patch was rescued from my ill-fated and long winded attempt to
> provide
> > a fix-up for function selector references, where the function is parsed
> > after the procedure
Hi Harald,
It might be a simple patch but I have to confess it took a while for me to
get my head around the difference between gfc_is_not_contiguous and
!gfc_is_simply_contigous :-(
Yes, this is OK for mainline and, after a short delay, for 13-branch.
Thanks for the patch
Paul
On Sat, 16
Dear All,
This patch was rescued from my ill-fated and long winded attempt to provide
a fix-up for function selector references, where the function is parsed
after the procedure containing the associate/select type construct (PRs
89645 and 99065). The fix-ups broke down completely once these
Hi Harald,
The patch is OK for mainline.
Thanks
Paul
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 22:47, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached patch picks up an observation by Tobias that we did
> not specify the RESTRICT qualifier for optional arguments even
> if that was allowed. In principle this
Dear All,
I have attached a mostly completed version of the Chivers and Sleightholme
F2018 compliance table to the above PR.
For features 1.x to 6.x, I wrote explicit tests, which are also attached to
the PR.
Much of the rest, I was able to fill out by inspection of the gfortran
source or the
Hi Harald,
The original testcase is accepted by the two other brands to which I have
access.
OK for mainline and, I would suggest, 13-branch.
Thanks
Paul
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 21:16, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached simple patch fixes the handling of the TARGET
>
Hi Andrew,
This is OK by me.
I attach a slightly edited version of the patch itself in the hope that it
will make the code a bit clearer.
Thanks and welcome!
Paul
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 17:35, Andrew Jenner wrote:
> This is the second version of the patch - previous discussion at:
>
Hi All,
Evidently -w causes gfc_option.allow_std to be set to default, which allows
anything and everything to happen, including these f2003/8 finalizations.
The fix is trivial.
Regtests fine - OK for mainline and -13 branch?
Paul
Fortran: Prevent unwanted finalization with -w option
Hi Martin,
This looks to be 'obvious' and is certainly OK for mainline. Backport if
you wish.
Thanks
Paul
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 12:54, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when developing an otherwise unrelated patch I've discovered that the
> fnspec for the Fortran library function
Hi Harald,
This looks good to me. OK for mainline.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 22:10, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I've dusted off and cleaned up a previous attempt to fix the handling
> of allocatable or pointer actual arguments to OPTIONAL+VALUE dummies.
> The
Hi All,
I have pushed as 'obvious' a fix for this regression to both 13-branch and
mainline. The patch itself looks substantial but it consists entirely of
the removal of a condition and repagination of the corresponding block.
Please see below for part of my first comment on the PR for an
* gfortran.dg/interface_50.f90: New test.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 20:12, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am 01.11.23 um 19:02 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas:
> > The interpretation request came in a long time ago but I only just got
> > around to implementing it.
> >
> > T
The interpretation request came in a long time ago but I only just got
around to implementing it.
The updated text from the standard is in the comment. Now I am writing
this, I think that I should perhaps use switch(op)/case rather than using
if/else if and depending on the order of the
I found this 'obvious' fix, while going through PRs assigned to me.
Regtests. OK for mainline?
Cheers
Paul
Fortran: Allocatable automatic charlen must not be saved [PR64120].
2023-10-31 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/64120
* trans-decl.cc (gfc_trans_deferred_vars): Detect automatic
Bizarrely, since the fix for pr101625, the testcase compiles and runs
correctly with s/select type (y => x)/select type (y => (x))/ !
The fix is straightforward and appears to be one of those wrinkles arising
from the use of associate variables as a selector. The fault is reasonable
since the
Hi Harald,
That's good for mainline.
Thanks for the patch
Paul
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 21:43, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached patch improves the diagnostics of MODULE PROCEDURE declaration
> conflicts, when one of the declarations is an alternate return. We used to
> ICE
Hi All,
The attached patch fixes the original problem, in which parentheses around
the selector in select type constructs caused ICES. Stacked parentheses
caused problems in trans-stmt.cc. Rather than tracking this down, the
redundant parentheses were removed on resolution of the selector
://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Fortran2008Status and
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Fortran2018Status. I will update these pages once
I am entirely sure of the state of each.
Cheers
Paul
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 07:32, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:54 PM Paul Richard Thomas
> wrote:
>
I have posted the version 4 of Ian Chivers and Jane Sleightholme's F2008
compliance table as an attachment to PR39627.
With Harald Anlauf's help it has been updated to correspond to gfortran
13.2. In the previous return for gfortran, a number of lines had not been
filled out at all. This has now
>
> you'll likely want
>
> ! { dg-do run }
>
> (Note the space before the dg-command.)
>
> Cheers,
> Harald
>
> On 10/11/23 21:06, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On 10/11/23 10:48, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> >> Hi All,
>
Hi All,
The title line of the PR should have been changed a long time since. As
noted in comment 5, the original problem was fixed in 10.5.
This patch fixes the problem described in comments 4 and 6, where the
hidden string length component was not being set in pointer assignment of
character
This was fixed as 'obvious' with an off-list OK, posted on the PR, from
Harald. Applied to 13-branch and trunk then closed as fixed.
Cheers
Paul
Fortran: Alloc comp of non-finalizable type not finalized [PR111674]
2023-10-04 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/37336
PR fortran/111674
*
Thanks for the fast review.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:38:57 +0100
> > Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andre,
> > >
> > > Yes indeed - it's fine for trunk and, I w
o is no problem.
>
> Regtests ok on x86_64_linux_gnu/f37. Ok for trunk?
>
> Regards,
> Andre
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:21:12 +0100
> Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> > Hi Andre,
> >
> > The patch looks fine to me. Since you mention it in the comment,
Hi Andre,
The patch looks fine to me. Since you mention it in the comment, is it
worth declaring the derived type 'foo' in a module and giving it a
final routine?
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 13:45, Andre Vehreschild via Fortran
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> attached patch
Hi All,
This is a straightforward patch that is adequately explained by the ChangeLog.
Regtests fine - OK for trunk?
Cheers
Paul
Fortran: Pad mismatched charlens in component initializers [PR68155]
2023-09-20 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/68155
* decl.cc (fix_initializer_charlen):
Hi Mikael,
The comment is very welcome! Looks good to me. OK for mainline.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 08:19, Mikael Morin via Fortran
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Harald reminded me recently that there was a working patch attached to the PR.
> I added a documentation comment
Hi Harald,
The statement,
in array_bound_check_elemental is redundant since the call is
determined by a more restrictive condition.
+ if (!(gfc_option.rtcheck & GFC_RTCHECK_BOUNDS))
+return;
Apart from that, it looks good to me. OK for mainline.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Thu, 14
After two months on trunk, this has been backported:
Fortran: Fix some problems blocking associate meta-bug [PR87477]
2023-08-27 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/87477
* parse.cc (parse_associate): Replace the existing evaluation
of the target rank with calls to gfc_resolve_ref and
Committed as 'obvious'. 13-branch to follow.
commit r14-3501-g44bcb51eb0d5cac6eb2de54541ca8e6c2d738160
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sat Aug 26 14:37:49 2023 +0100
Fortran: Supply a missing dereference [PR92586]
2023-08-26 Paul Thomas
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/92586
Hi Harald,
It all looks good to me and does indeed make the code clearer. OK for trunk.
Thanks for the patch.
I was shocked to find that there are 217 older bugs than 49588. Does
anybody test older bugs to check if any of them have been fixed?
Paul
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 20:48, Harald Anlauf
Hi Jorge,
> There were some recent patches in this area IIRC.
>
> Jerry
The tree dump is identical to mine, obtained with GNU Fortran (GCC)
14.0.0 20230809 (experimental), so I doubt that any recent patches are
responsible.
Being unable to reproduce the error, there is not much that I can do.
I wonder why the development 14.0.0 doesn't exhibit this behaviour?
Could you please rerun with the compile options -g -fdump-tree-original .
The later should generate a file *.original with the content:
void test ()
{
character(kind=1) cc[1:32];
__builtin_memmove ((void *) , (void *) &"
I took a look at my calendar and decided to backport right away.
r13-7703-ged049e5d5f36cc0f4318cd93bb6b33ed6f6f2ba7
BTW It is a regression :-)
Paul
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 12:10, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
>
> Committed to trunk as 'obvious' in
>
Committed to trunk as 'obvious' in
r14-3098-gb8ec3c952324f866f191883473922e250be81341
13-branch to follow in a few days.
Paul
Hi Mikhail,
That's ever so slightly embarrassing :-) My notes for that commit
don't provide any enlightenment.
Thanks
Paul
presume that it reflects some case where the assertion failed? If
so, it might be prudent to retain the assertion especially in light
of:
gcc_assert (tmp_se.post.head == NULL_TREE); a bit further down.
OK for trunk
Thanks for all the work and the patches.
Paul
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 19:40, Paul
Hi Mikhail,
This patch uses a field for gfc_se called class container, which is
neither declared nor set as far as I can tell.
Regards
Paul
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 10:05, Mikael Morin via Fortran
wrote:
>
> Pass already evaluated class container argument from
> gfc_conv_procedure_call down to
Hi Mikael,
All 14 patches apply cleanly to trunk, which is rebuilding right now
and will regtest this evening.
I will review the composite patch tomorrow morning and will come back
to you as soon as I can.
At first sight all is well; perhaps the commented out line can be
dispensed with?
Many
Hi Mikhail,
That's more than OK by me.
Thanks for attacking this PR.
I have a couple more of Steve's orphans waiting to be packaged up -
91960 and 104649. I'll submit them this evening.100607 is closed-fixed
and 103796 seems to be fixed.
Regards
Paul
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 at 13:08, Mikael
ic)
> {
>tmp = gfc_find_dt_in_generic (tmp);
>if (tmp && tmp->attr.flavor == FL_DERIVED)
>
> Both variants are equally readable, though.
>
> I haven't though long enough about possible minor memleaks,
> i.e. if a freeing of gfc_symbol tmp is advised.
>
The attached patch incorporates two of Steve's "Orphaned Patches" -
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-June/059423.html
They have in common that they both involve faults in use of default
type and that I was the ultimate cause of the bugs.
The patch regtests with the attached testcases.
Hi Harald,
This is indeed obvious :-)
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 19:32, Harald Anlauf via Fortran
wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I intend to commit the attached obvious patch within 24h unless
> someone objects. gfc_compare_expr() did not handle the case of
> complex
Hi All,
I have gone through the PDT problem reports and made sure that they
block PR82173.
To my utter astonishment (i) There might be only one duplicate; and
(ii) Only 82649, 84119, 90218, 95541, 99079, 102901 & 105380 (out of
50 PRs) depend on the representation.
Regards
Paul
Hi Alexander,
I suggest that you take a look at PR82649 before going too far down
the road of fixing PDT bugs. This PR underlines just how wrong the PDT
representation is - mea culpa!
The mechanics for constructing PDTs are in
decl.cc(gfc_get_pdt_instance). They need to be turned inside out to
This is a heads up for a patch that has not been exercised enough as yet.
It works rather better and with less pain than I expected.
The testcase is really that of PR99065 but I thought that I should
give Ian Harvey prior credit for PR89645. Both appear in the meta-bug
PR87477.
I'll do the
; size of a character string you are using an intermediate
> gfc_array_index_type, whereas I have learned to use
> gfc_charlen_type_node now, which seems like the natural
> type here.
>
> OK for trunk, and thanks for your patience!
>
> Harald
>
>
> On 6/27/23 12:30
.
(gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign): Expand assignment to class
components to include intrinsic and character expressions.
gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/49213
* gfortran.dg/pr49213.f90 : New test
On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 20:50, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> On 6/24/23 15:18, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches
missed somewhere.
I'm onto it.
Paul
On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 20:50, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> On 6/24/23 15:18, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > I have included the adjustment to 'gfc_is_ptr_fcn' and eliminating the
> > extra blank line, introd
Hi All,
I was looking through Neil Carlson's collection of gfortran bugs and
was shocked to find this rather fundamental PR. At 12 years old, it is
certainly a "golden oldie"!
The patch is rather straightforward and seems to do the job of
admitting derived, intrinsic and character expressions to
Hi Both,
> while I only had a minor question regarding gfc_is_ptr_fcn(),
> can you still try to enlighten me why that second part
> was necessary? (I believed it to be redundant and may have
> overlooked the obvious.)
Blast! I forgot about checking that. Lurking in the back of my mind
and going
Committed as r14-2022-g577223aebc7acdd31e62b33c1682fe54a622ae27
Thanks for the help and the review Harald. Thanks to Steve too for
picking up Neil Carlson's bugs.
Cheers
Paul
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 22:57, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 6/20/23 12:54, Paul Richard Th
Committed as r14-2021-gcaf0892eea67349d9a1e44590c3440768136fe2b
Thanks for the pointers, Tobias and Mikael, I used them both.
Paul
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 21:47, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> Le 20/06/2023 à 18:30, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
> > On 20.06.23 18:19, Paul Richard Thomas via F
Dear All,
This patch is verging on obvious. The PR was originally, incorrectly
blocking PR87477 and the testcase has remained in my 'associate'
directory. I thought that it is time to get shot of it!
Is there a better way to detect a type(c_ptr) formal argument?
Subject to advice on the
Hi Tobias,
This looks good to me. I'm interested to see it in use :-)
OK for trunk
Paul
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 11:50, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> When just matching a symbol, one can use 'gfc_match_symbol (, host_assoc)'
> and has the option to match with and without host association.
>
>
Hi Harald,
Fixing the original testcase in this PR turned out to be slightly more
involved than I expected. However, it resulted in an open door to fix
some other PRs and the attached much larger patch.
This time, I did remember to include the testcases in the .diff :-)
I believe that, between
un 2023 at 19:01, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 6/17/23 11:14, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The attached patch is amply described by the comments and the
> > changelog. It also includes the fix for the memory leak i
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo